http://www.dbskeptic.com Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:54:54 +0000 en-us hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Digital Bits Skeptic brings skepticism and critical thinking to a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture. Andy Kaiser clean Andy Kaiser skeptic@dbskeptic.com skeptic@dbskeptic.com (Andy Kaiser) 2009 Skepticism and critical thinking in a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture skeptic, skepticism, critical thinking, new age, religion, pop culture, skeptical articles, critical thinking articles, philosophy http://www.dbskeptic.com/images/dbskeptic-logo-144.jpg http://www.dbskeptic.com/category/pseudoscience/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:50:12 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/feed/ 9 Science Reason & Rationality by Nick Josh Karean from Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 148 "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” - Carl Sagan, by Nick Josh Karean from Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 148 "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” - Carl Sagan, American Scientist (1934-1996) How many times have you heard someone claim that their products, theories or beliefs are "Scientifically Proven”? They often do this before completely taking over your brain and gaining absolute access into your wallet. Almost anyone can claim that their ideas are “scientifically proven” or “scientifically tested”. Judging by how gullible and ignorant most of us are, it really doesn’t take much for this claim to convince someone. What is science? So, how can you tell which claim is truly scientifically proven and which one is not? To understand, we first need a basic understanding of what science is, and how to ensure that those who claim to be “scientifically proven” have followed the required procedures to really deserve that title. Okay, let’s get to work. What exactly is science? Science is a method, a procedure, a technique by which we use to examine our surroundings and gain knowledge from them. With sometimes painstaking accuracy, science produces precise unbiased data. It’s not a belief system. Science is fact-based, not faith-based. For example, mathematics is a form of science: one plus two equals three. ‘One plus two’ is the method and ‘three’ is the answer derived from that method. The answer ‘three’ does not require your belief. It is a fact whether you believe in it or not. This factual approach is the best and the most reliable method for achieving accuracy. No matter how many times you repeat the process, it will produce the same results Expecting others to believe that one plus two equals four (without using any systematic scientific method to prove it) is not the right method of gaining knowledge and it is always prone to error. Another example of a factual approach is in the court of law. The court looks for evidence first before making a verdict. The judge and jury do not start with a conclusion – they develop one based on available evidence. “While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.” - Judge William Overton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (1939-1987) The scientific method The 10 Commandments of Science (inspired by science journalist “Potholer”) Thou shalt base thy conclusion on the evidence. Thou shalt measure objectively, not guess subjectively. Thou shalt back up thy statements with evidence. Just claiming something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. Thou shalt use large sample sets. Thy tests shall be double-blinded. Thy tests shall have observable controls. Thou shalt cite thy sources of information. Thy sources of information must be reliable, verifiable and backed up by evidence. Thy opinion is not a fact. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Don’t lie! Well, actually, the above are not really divine commandments, but they're a good basic guide to scientific observation. All scientific knowledge is based on two things: observation and logic. Thus, good research follows these rules to produce true scientific data and genuine knowledge. As we said earlier, such rules are applied in the court of law to preserve or uphold justice. The rules exist to ensure impartiality, fairness and the most truthful of results. Now that we’ve understood the basics of science, let’s go a little deeper to see what exactly is involved in this whole scientific procedure thing. We’ll create a scenario, apply the basics of the scientific method, and see what happens… 1. Andy Kaiser clean 16:42 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/12/in-defense-of-oprah-winfrey/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/12/in-defense-of-oprah-winfrey/#comments Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:57:00 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1364 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/12/in-defense-of-oprah-winfrey/feed/ 5 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1330 - Oprah Winfrey was nothing more to me than an unseen TV show. I knew she was there, but never wanted to watch. Why would I? Her show was usually about clothes and cooking and redecorating and various "women's issues" th... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1330 Oprah Winfrey was nothing more to me than an unseen TV show. I knew she was there, but never wanted to watch. Why would I? Her show was usually about clothes and cooking and redecorating and various "women's issues" that I just didn't care about. I didn't have time for all that. I was a MAN. I had to get things DONE. No time for what I saw as fluff. I had important video games to play. Then years later, like some people do, I married a girl. My wife changed my viewpoint on many things, including how I felt about Oprah Winfrey. When I first realized my wife watched Oprah, I gave a long-suffering mental sigh. But, I figured I'd treat her Oprah-watching with the same respect she treated my video game playing: it would be tolerated, but never spoken about. But as I overheard a few things and learned some facts, my viewpoint changed. Oprah is a very good person. In 2007, Oprah spent $40 million to build the "Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls" in South Africa. She did this to provide educational opportunities to gifted girls who may not normally have a chance to succeed. In 2006, she raised money to help people recover from Hurricane Katrina. She got over $11 million in donations, and personally donated $10 million. In 1998, she started "Oprah's Angel Network", a charity designed to improve the lives of the underprivileged.  As of this writing, the charity has raised more than $51 million. And none of it is wasted - any overhead like administrative costs is personally covered by Oprah. 100% of donations actually get to those who need them. She's known to be an extremely philanthropic celebrity, if not the most philanthropic. I'm telling you these facts to show that Oprah herself personally cares about people, and she's willing to spend major chunks of her time and money to help others.  I'm telling you this to make clear what I believe about her personality - that whatever she might believe or promote, she's not malicious. Now we come to the situation today. It was my wife that alerted me as to the events. She said, "I just read this really cool Newsweek article about Oprah. I think you might be interested." The June 8, 2009 article was a long feature story on Oprah, detailing the medical quackery she's had on her show, from ineffective New Age scams  to dangerous anti-vaccination medical advice popularized in multiple interviews with Jenny McCarthy. It pulled no punches. The piece was titled, "Crazy Talk: Oprah, Wacky Cures and You". Then, just a few hours later, the skeptical community virtually exploded in glee. The big skeptical names brought out their big cannons, and fired. People in and outside of the skeptical community wrote their own "open letter to Oprah", expressing well-reasoned arguments as to why Oprah shouldn't be doing what she's doing, essentially bolstering and supporting the Newsweek article. So Oprah got slammed by the mass media. Hard. And don't get me wrong - she should be held accountable for popularizing such claims. Particularly when those claims go against the consensus of the medical community. Particularly if those claims could cause harm to others, either by intention or negligence. Particularly when Oprah is so influential. But in the press that followed the Newsweek article, people seemed to really hate Oprah herself. In my Inbox right now, I have an email from someone with the self-righteous subject line, "Oprah gets what is coming to her".  Reader's Digest magazine followed up with an article, "The Trouble With Celebrity Science". You'll find plenty of not-so-polite opinion pieces. Some are intelligent. Some have titles like "Oprah is an idiot" and "Oprah fails at everything". Well, Oprah is not an idiot. She doesn't "fail at everything". This is clear. A smart person can be uncritical and taken in by ideas they hope are true. A good example is Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes. Andy Kaiser clean 9:54 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/12/the-ideomotor-effect/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/12/the-ideomotor-effect/#comments Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:25:50 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1126 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/12/the-ideomotor-effect/feed/ 7 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1326 - The ideomotor effect is a psychological accident that spans many new age traditions, séances, and other "woo-woo" practises. I must emphasise that these practises aren't faked intentionally. By M Parrott Article ID: 1326 The ideomotor effect is a psychological accident that spans many new age traditions, séances, and other "woo-woo" practises. I must emphasise that these practises aren't faked intentionally. People delude themselves into believing they are true. Examples of the ideomotor effect cover a wide range of supernatural games, from Victorian-era séances to examining the most harmoniously-vibrating new age crystal. The ideomotor effect and the Ouija board Ah, yes, one of the most popular séance tools! Today, Ouija boards are usually perceived more as a joke and a fun party game. We all know the basic principal and layout of the most common Ouija boards - you've got a flat board with letters of the alphabet printed on it: You've got a "planchette", which is a small pointing device that can be slid around the board. Participants put their hands on the planchette and concentrate on a particular problem, question or spirit communication. The planchette will then start to move towards particular letters or symbols on the Ouija board, giving you a response to your question. If you want to test this out as we go, it would be a great exercise and far superior to me just talking to you: 1) Get 26 small sheets of paper. Write the letters A-Z on the pieces. 2) Get a large table and remove any coverings (like tablecloths). 3) Place all the cards face up in a circle so it looks somewhat like the picture you see here. Candles are optional. 4) Get a strong wine glass (preferably one without wine inside). Turn it upside down and place it in the centre of the cards. And there you have a homemade Ouija board. The next steps work better if you have more than one person, however you can try it alone if you want to tempt the Powers of Darkness all by yourself. Turn one letter over so it's face down. Place two fingers on the wine glass. Concentrate. Focus on believing that the wine glass WILL definitely move towards that one letter turned upside down. Don't move your hand intentionally, but if the glass moves move with it. Keep concentrating. It will move if you concentrate. And it'll speed up towards the letter and when it gets there it will stop at the letter. Now that may not have worked for all of you, but it will have worked for some. I also apologise if the wine glass shot off the table and smashed. If so, that just means you are really easy to manipulate. Now you may be wondering how that worked and why the glass moved. You know for a fact you didn't move the glass. So how did it move? Through a genuine spirit! Nah, just messing with you. The movement happens because of the ideomotor effect. The ideomotor is the mechanism which makes your reflexes kick in when your knee is tapped gently with a doctor's hammer. But in this case what happens is, due to you focusing so much mental power on something, your body makes it physically happen. You may not think you are doing it, but you are, and the more you are convinced it is going to happen, the faster it happens. Which is why a Ouija board "works" better for people who use one more often. What evidence do I have for this? Easy: find a medium who will do the Ouija board blind-folded. Blindfold them, and then without telling them, turn the Ouija board around. As the "Ouijing" commences, the medium will move the planchette to the locations that they think the letters are, as if the board was rotated correctly. This shows the Ouija board is all in the user's mind, and that it isn't some spiritual communion. Ouija boards aren't the only evidence of the ideomotor effect in new age superstitions. Dowsing Dowsing is traditionally thought of as the process of finding underground water or oil using Y-shaped sticks or wire. To a large extent, this is the process. But dowsing has widened its spectrum of effect. A few years ago, I saw a dowser trying to find human remains on a British Archaeology programme called "Time Team". Andy Kaiser clean 11:07 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/10/the-swine-flu-crisis/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/10/the-swine-flu-crisis/#comments Mon, 11 May 2009 02:07:30 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1002 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/10/the-swine-flu-crisis/feed/ 9 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1320 - The news lately has been buzzing about the swine flu. Excuse me, I mean the "H1N1 virus". Or the "2009 H1N1 influenza virus". Or the "H1N1 swine flu". - You know what? I'm going to forego the medical designation and ju... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1320 The news lately has been buzzing about the swine flu. Excuse me, I mean the "H1N1 virus". Or the "2009 H1N1 influenza virus". Or the "H1N1 swine flu". You know what? I'm going to forego the medical designation and... Andy Kaiser clean 15:22 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/#comments Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:50:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=894 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/feed/ 12 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1313 - Hi everyone, this is Andy Kaiser. I'd like to share an interesting experience. I have a unique perspective on the Digital Bits Skeptic website, because I'm the administrator. I edit and post all articles. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1313 Hi everyone, this is Andy Kaiser. I'd like to share an interesting experience. I have a unique perspective on the Digital Bits Skeptic website, because I'm the administrator. I edit and post all articles. Some of those I write myself, and my articles interest me, no matter how odd they may seem to others. I also get to see all comments submitted by visitors. This gives me a very good feel for the readership. For the most part, Digital Bits Skeptic has... well, skeptical-minded readers. These are women and men with excellent critical thinking skills, people who enjoy weird and interesting puzzles, people who want to attack logical anomalies and find out why and how. Several months ago, I wrote and posted an article about "human static electricity generators". I wrote it for laughs, and poked fun at a pseudoscientific claim that didn't even take itself seriously. This was the case of Mavis Price, and an interview she gave to the UK newspaper the Daily Mail. Ms. Price is a woman whose body supposedly generates a massive amount of static electricity. Like a high-voltage ninja, this power gives her a "death-touch" to any electrical appliance. Computers and vacuum cleaners and television sets have all fallen victim to this static buildup. So I wrote a critical article about this, poking fun at the situation and offering many suggestions as to why Ms. Price may be misinterpreting her symptoms. And the strangest thing happened: the article received a few comments, as the articles usually do, but these comments were different. They were from people chiming in to support Ms. Price. Starting with comment number three, many of these people claimed they could generate their own static electricity, and, like Ms. Price, expressed their frustration at how this power is irritating and interferes with their daily life. Here are a few comments: Kathleen said, "A friend of mine is a psychologist and he used his galvanic skin resistance test machine on me and had never seen anything like what I made that machine do." Mac said, "But these days it's worse - metal shocks me, other people, plastic yes plastic..cloth...wood...i am freakin afraid to touch anything...i mean these are mean crackling visible shocks mini blue bolts or electricity...don't get me wrong if i could control it would be cool but i can't..." Brook said, "I am 37, and have purchased 26 VCR/DVD players in the last 48 months, I have shocked people on the other end of a phone line, and in the dark if I get close to a light switch you can visibly see the arc from my finger tip to the light switch before I touch it. I dim streetlights when I walk below them, and haven't been able to wear a watch since I was 13. It is real, it is financially cumbersome, and it freaks people out. Yes, I am using a computer to type this message, I've learned first to ground myself before touching any electrical equipment, and second it doesn't happen all of the time, it seems more common when I am angry, or deep in thought etc. I just wanted to respond because there are many people that are different in the world, this is just another (dis)ability." Other skeptics and I replied. We gave recommendations for properly testing this power, how to rule out natural causes, and indicated what a supernatural cause would imply. I contacted James Randi, and asked him if he'd encountered this phenomenon. Of course he had. His response was, "Yes, I've seen a few of them. Simply changing their footwear always 'cures' the problem." A simple proposal. But as the conversation extended into several dozen comments, I realized something: Those complaining about this ability didn't seem to care enough to troubleshoot it. And that's the real problem. If you think you have a static super-power, I'm begging you: please see a doctor. If the doctor does a test and says, "My god, I've never seen anything like this before!" ...don't just end it there! Andy Kaiser clean 6:58 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/28/spontaneous-human-combustion-and-the-wick-effect/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/28/spontaneous-human-combustion-and-the-wick-effect/#comments Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:42:55 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=761 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/28/spontaneous-human-combustion-and-the-wick-effect/feed/ 11 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1310 - Imagine you're sitting at home on your favorite overstuffed armchair. You sink down in the stuffing and relax. You've got a cigarette in one hand, a drink in the other. - You smoke and drink. You're sleepy, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1310 Imagine you're sitting at home on your favorite overstuffed armchair. You sink down in the stuffing and relax. You've got a cigarette in one hand, a drink in the other. You smoke and drink. You're sleepy, and the lazy trail of cigarette smoke is a gentle hypnosis. It lulls you into closing your eyes. Your brain decides it would rather be dreaming, and the rest of your body agrees. You go to sleep. You never again wake up. After your hysterical neighbor calls emergency services, the police break in to your home and find a gruesome and unbelievable sight. Your body is burned. Clothing, flesh and bones. It's gone. All that's left of you is a foot still wearing a slipper. Your chair is nothing but black cinders. But what's so perplexing, so frightening, is that there is no other damage to the room. Your body and your chair were destroyed, incinerated. But despite the horrible heat and flame needed to accomplish this, the fire never spread beyond, well, you. This wasn't caused by an electrical problem, and there was no highly-combustible fuel like gasoline. The fire was brutally hot, and burned fast, so couldn't have been caused by a dropped cigarette. And in either case, the pain of being burned would have woken you up before killing you. This is the mystery of spontaneous human combustion. While I've used a little poetic license in the story above, it really did happen. These were the facts of what could be the most famous case of spontaneous human combustion, that of Mary Reeser, who died in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1951. Proponents of spontaneous human combustion point to several possible explanations. Humans can suddenly explode into flame, they say, because of things like excessive static electricity build-up. Get a big enough zap, and you'll spark a fire. There are indeed people who get more than the average amount of static shocks. And every human gut carries around a quantity of methane gas. This highly flammable gas is one of the byproducts of digestion. Perhaps certain unlucky people - those with more than average methane and a higher incidence of static shocks - are more likely to burst into flame without warning. If you were looking for a reason to stop smoking, I can't think of any better incentive. Luckily for those of us who haven't yet combusted, things make more sense when we look at spontaneous human combustion from a skeptical point of view. In order for a human body - or anything - to burst into flame, we need three things: 1) Fuel 2) Heat 3) Oxygen Let's examine the Mary Reeser case. We have oxygen, of course: The air we breathe is about 21% oxygen. We have heat: Reeser's lit cigarette. And we have a limited fuel source: Reeser's chair. What I haven't yet detailed beyond the opening story are a few additional facts about Mary Reeser: She was overweight. At the time of the accident, she was wearing flammable nightclothes. She had also just taken multiple doses of sleeping pills. The floors and walls of her apartment were made of concrete. The wick effect I said the chair is a "limited" fuel source because stuffing and wood are probably not enough to produce a bone-incinerating heat all on their own. To achieve this, we consider "the wick effect". This is where the fat in a body contributes to a fire. As the fire heats a body, the fat will melt and begin to burn. Just as a cotton wick will pull molten wax from a candle and burn it, cotton stuffing in a chair will do the same thing with human body fat of a person sitting in that chair. Like Mary Reeser. With the addition of these facts, the sequence of events becomes ever clearer: Mary Reeser fell asleep in her chair. Her lit cigarette dropped and ignited her nightgown or her chair. The material burned, and Reeser did not wake in time (or at all) because of her recently-ingested sleeping pills. The fat in her body liquefied and burned, Andy Kaiser clean 8:21 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/14/orgone-chips-review-new-age-versus-the-scientific-method/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/14/orgone-chips-review-new-age-versus-the-scientific-method/#comments Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:46:35 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=706 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/14/orgone-chips-review-new-age-versus-the-scientific-method/feed/ 11 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser - - Article ID: 138 - Orgone is a magical energy force that's inside and outside our bodies. You can think of orgone as the Chinese culture's "chi" or any generic "life force energy". It permeates us and everything around us. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 138 Orgone is a magical energy force that's inside and outside our bodies. You can think of orgone as the Chinese culture's "chi" or any generic "life force energy". It permeates us and everything around us. Using ... Andy Kaiser clean 17:47 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/02/evolutionary-science-and-creationism-a-skeptical-response-to-duane-gishs-creation-scientists-answer-their-critics/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/02/evolutionary-science-and-creationism-a-skeptical-response-to-duane-gishs-creation-scientists-answer-their-critics/#comments Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:39:24 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=455 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/02/evolutionary-science-and-creationism-a-skeptical-response-to-duane-gishs-creation-scientists-answer-their-critics/feed/ 2 Matthew Green By Matthew Green Article ID: 1258 - Controversy over creation and evolution persists. For most secularists, the battle was won long ago. It began with the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species and the ensuing debates between Darwin's defenders and ... By Matthew Green Article ID: 1258 Controversy over creation and evolution persists. For most secularists, the battle was won long ago. It began with the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species and the ensuing debates between Darwin's defenders and his opponents. Creationism persists today for a simple reason: fundamentalism persists today. Creationism is nothing more than Christian apologetics attempting to validate the historical inerrancy of the creation accounts of the Hebrew Bible's Book of Genesis. Creation "scientists" such as the late Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati, and others use whatever "facts" to support Genesis, while rationalizing away anything to the contrary as a result of sloppy thinking or dishonest ulterior motives. They say that skeptics have more to do with "misotheism" (hatred of gods) or "compromise" than with honest scientific objectivity. These creationists believe that skepticism or disbelief is more from a desire to avoid a "relationship" with Jesus Christ and an existential involvement with the gospel. These pathetic attempts to construct a "science" out of creationism are attempts to present Christianity as intellectually respectable to the modern world. This ensures that the gospel isn't dismissed out of hand by a more educated public. What it all comes down to is evangelism. Apologists are doing what they can to make the Bible look scientifically inerrant so they can have an easier time convincing people to become Christians. This article shows that: 1) Creationists use Karl Popper's universally accepted concept of "falsifiability" as a valid criterion for what constitutes a scientific theory. 2) Creationists do not seem to realize that evolution meets this criterion. 3) Creationists cannot pass this criterion on theological grounds because it is inconsistent with the nature of the Christian God. Karl Popper's criterion of "falsifiability" Karl Popper was a science philosopher who proposed the criterion of "falsifiability" as a necessary ingredient of science. Falsifiability means that that an assertion can be proven false by observation or experiment. This is the biggest criterion used to demarcate authentic science from pseudoscience. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about Popper's criterion of "falsifiability": "It is easy, [Popper] argues, to obtain evidence in favour of virtually any theory, and he consequently holds that such ‘corroboration' ... should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a ... prediction, which might conceivably have been false. For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable... Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies the whole theory. ...In a word, an exception, far from ‘proving' a rule, conclusively refutes it. Every genuine scientific theory then, in Popper's view, is prohibitive, in the sense that it forbids ... particular events or occurrences. As such it can be tested and falsified, but never logically verified. Thus Popper stresses that it should not be inferred from the fact that a theory has withstood [testing and has been verified]; rather we should recognize that such a theory has received a high measure of corroboration and [is] the best available theory until it is finally falsified ... or is superseded by a better theory." So the hallmark of a genuine scientific theory is "falsifiability". It has to be capable of being refuted or falsified in order to truly qualify as a scientific theory. A theory is scientific only if it is refutable. This can be an observation, an experiment, or any other empirical test that can decisively refute it. Theories cannot be verified but they can be refuted and the failure of experiments, observations, or any other empirical test gives scientists greater confidence that the hypothesis or theory is, in fact, true. Andy Kaiser clean 21:02 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/19/political-science-and-skepticism-politics-needs-critical-thought/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/19/political-science-and-skepticism-politics-needs-critical-thought/#comments Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:27:51 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=401 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/19/political-science-and-skepticism-politics-needs-critical-thought/feed/ 5 Jason Y By Jason Y Article ID: 1256 - When someone thinks of the word "skeptic" or thinks about the movement in general, they get ideas about exposing Bigfoot hunters and cracking down on pseudoscience.  Although issues like these are a part of the skepticism ... By Jason Y Article ID: 1256 When someone thinks of the word "skeptic" or thinks about the movement in general, they get ideas about exposing Bigfoot hunters and cracking down on pseudoscience.  Although issues like these are a part of the skepticis... Andy Kaiser clean 8:59 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/10/where-meat-meets-metal-how-acupuncture-works-or-doesnt/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/10/where-meat-meets-metal-how-acupuncture-works-or-doesnt/#comments Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:54:59 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=383 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/10/where-meat-meets-metal-how-acupuncture-works-or-doesnt/feed/ 10 Thomas Gentry By Thomas Gentry Article ID: 1254 - Right down the road from my house, there's a store selling and promoting homeopathy and acupuncture. I've spent a couple dozen hours collecting information about the place and what it sells so that I can give an accu... By Thomas Gentry Article ID: 1254 Right down the road from my house, there's a store selling and promoting homeopathy and acupuncture. I've spent a couple dozen hours collecting information about the place and what it sells so that I can give an accurate depiction of its beliefs and worth. In the next few paragraphs I'll expound on why this alternative modality of medicine is another case of people taking money for a service they can't render. I'll use text from their own website and combine this with the knowledge and critical thinking skills I have acquired from past studies. When addressed critically, this undermines the practitioners' intellectual credibility and their entire profession. I'm not a particularly well-read or knowledgeable person; I don't have specific knowledge of any field in appreciable depth. What I do have is years of training and practice in trying to spot lies and chicanery. In this case, I don't need in-depth knowledge of any specific medical modality. If I needed detailed knowledge of every topic to judge the validity of its claims, I would still be stuck on making and learning the proofs for addition, multiplication, and subtraction--don't even get me started on division. Using the filtering processes afforded to me by the rules of logic, I gauge a topic by the unlikelihood of its claims. The reference material for acupuncture sets off nearly every "red flag" I have acquired over the years, leading me to judge it as an extremely unlikely candidate for efficacy. Right from the "get go", if you do a search on the natural history of acupuncture you find claims like "It is based on the theory that a life force called Qi [pronounced 'chee'] flows through the body along certain channels, which if blocked can cause illness." That particular red flag is called the logical fallacy of "magical thinking." The magical thinking proponent says something meaningless, and allows the listener to fill in any logical gaps. Like how this "life force" works, what it is, or what is blocking it. How does the insertion of needles fix this blockage? This method of boondoggling doesn't work once you have the trained habit of forming questions when information is presented. It's as simple as asking, "how does this statement explain the claim?" If we can get past the first premise of this Chinese ideology (which already leap-frogs past rationality), the literature abounds with examples of lazy thinking. For instance, the claim that "acupuncture has been practiced for up to 5,000 years in the Orient" added to this claim of, "the evidences for acupuncture's effectiveness are adding up." In five thousand years, there's not enough data to link a cause and effect! What disheveled mind could make both of these claims without seeing the two statements are nearly incompatible, unless the writer means to say "the evidence has been building for 5,000 years, but we don't want to be too expedient in our proclamation of acupuncture's worth." That's only five hundred decades without a sensible explanation of acupuncture's cause and effect. Today's strongest claims have no link between cause and effect. The acupuncture peddlers themselves can't definitively explain their treatment. I found at least four separate and distinct ideas proposed as the underlying method of how acupuncture works. I'd like to specifically address two of these: Endorphins The body reacts to pain and intrusion by releasing feel-good drugs that lessen the pain. That one sounds fairly straight-forward, probably because it doesn't mention Qi. It refers to an actual, measurable, chemical process of the body. But why insert needles all over your body when you could just take these same chemicals in pill form? If this acupuncture claim really is correct, the entire process has been outmoded by modern pharmacology! Magic The next idea listed on my local acupuncturists' website was, "inserting a needle into the body's connective tissue... Andy Kaiser clean 8:23 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/07/08/a-field-trip-to-edgar-cayces-association-for-research-and-enlightenment/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/07/08/a-field-trip-to-edgar-cayces-association-for-research-and-enlightenment/#comments Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:19:12 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=98 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/07/08/a-field-trip-to-edgar-cayces-association-for-research-and-enlightenment/feed/ 10 Tammy Buchli By Tammy Buchli, Science & Reason in Hampton Roads Article ID: 1238 - When my local skeptic's organization (Science & Reason in Hampton Roads) announced a field trip to Edgar Cayce's Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, By Tammy Buchli, Science & Reason in Hampton Roads Article ID: 1238 When my local skeptic's organization (Science & Reason in Hampton Roads) announced a field trip to Edgar Cayce's Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, I was... Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/29/psychic-stagecraft-how-to-change-from-magician-to-miracle-worker/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/29/psychic-stagecraft-how-to-change-from-magician-to-miracle-worker/#comments Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:23:40 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=95 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/29/psychic-stagecraft-how-to-change-from-magician-to-miracle-worker/feed/ 3 Peter Booth By Peter Booth Article ID: 1235 - Mentalism is a form of performance magic that simulates the paranormal, most commonly mind-reading, predicting the future and psychokinesis.  Magicians get involved in skepticism because much of the time the so-called ... By Peter Booth Article ID: 1235 Mentalism is a form of performance magic that simulates the paranormal, most commonly mind-reading, predicting the future and psychokinesis.  Magicians get involved in skepticism because much of the time the so-calle... Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/25/anecdotal-evidence-against-anecdotal-evidence/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/25/anecdotal-evidence-against-anecdotal-evidence/#comments Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:46:47 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=92 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/25/anecdotal-evidence-against-anecdotal-evidence/feed/ 2 Tammy Buchli By Tammy Buchli, Science & Reason in Hampton Roads Article ID: 1234 Everybody has a story, and most people are eager to share their stories with anyone who will listen.  A problem is that some like to use their stories as scientific evidence. By Tammy Buchli, Science & Reason in Hampton Roads Article ID: 1234 Everybody has a story, and most people are eager to share their stories with anyone who will listen.  A problem is that some like to use their stories as scientific evidence.  Alternative medicine advocates, in particular, love to use anecdotes in order to justify the efficacy of their wares.  After all, if something seems to work, it's pretty easy to make the claim that it actually is working.  The problem, of course, is that anecdotal evidence can be deceptive. My daughter, now 21 years old, is disabled with cerebral palsy.  She was diagnosed at 8 months old, and her level of disability is fairly severe.  I soon discovered that having a disabled child made us attractive to people attempting to sell alternative cures.  This was particularly obvious after we got our first home computer. Typing ‘cerebral palsy' into a search engine unleashed a deluge of snake oil salesmen, each of whom urged us to buy their product or service and offered a long list of satisfied customers as proof that they could help our daughter.  We chose instead to limit our daughter's medical care to therapies which had been vetted by science.  But still... sometimes those alternative therapies seemed mighty attractive - some of these things did seem to work for some people.  Were we wrong not to take the chance that some of these cures might help our daughter?  Finally, though, an event occurred which convinced me of the error of using anecdotal evidence as the sole claim for the efficacy of a treatment or therapy.  This is our story - what I like to call anecdotal evidence against anecdotal evidence. When our daughter was nine years old, she had a major orthopedic surgery on her legs.  This was her second such surgery and her recovery was slow and difficult, as is common with repeat orthopedic surgeries.  She was in a body cast for six weeks, and then underwent extensive physical therapy for a year after the cast was removed.  The results of the surgery were somewhat disappointing - one year after the surgery, she seemed no better off than she had been before it.  He legs were straighter and her posture better, but functionally she was about the same.  She could use crutches to a limited degree in our home, but used a wheelchair to and from school and everywhere else.  We assumed that she had simply found her level; we stopped the physical therapy and life went on. Eight months later, however, something happened.  Our daughter suddenly started to improve.  We later discovered that bursts of spontaneous improvement are not uncommon in children with cerebral palsy.  But at the time, her progress seemed almost miraculous to us.  Within just a few months time, she made major, noticeable advances in almost every aspect of her physicality.  Her balance, strength and muscle tone improved; as did her posture and gait.  She started using her crutches exclusively, and learned to walk with one crutch instead of two.  Within a year, her wheelchair was relegated to the attic.  And all these changes took place despite a complete lack of any kind of therapeutic intervention. Now, what if during the year immediately following her difficult surgery, we had become discouraged and turned to craniosacral therapy, or biofeedback, or hyperbaric oxygen chamber therapy?  What if we had sold the dog and a kidney apiece to finance a trip to Poland for Adeli Suit therapy, or to Lourdes for a faith healing?   Then those things would have gotten the credit for her improvement, even though they would clearly have had nothing to do with it. That's the problem with using anecdotes as evidence - they are stories, not facts.  Stories are fun to tell and fun to hear, but they don't prove anything on their own.  Anecdotal evidence can be useful as a starting point for research, but it has to be backed up with randomized, controlled clinical trials if it is to have any real value. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/04/the-ten-percent-of-the-brain-myth-a-fractional-truth/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/04/the-ten-percent-of-the-brain-myth-a-fractional-truth/#comments Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:16:11 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/04/the-ten-percent-of-the-brain-myth-a-fractional-truth/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/04/the-ten-percent-of-the-brain-myth-a-fractional-truth/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1229 - In writing this article, I tried to use ten percent of my brain. I really did. But I got stuck pretty fast on the method of how to actually use only ten percent of my brain. There seem to be many ways to go about it. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1229 In writing this article, I tried to use ten percent of my brain. I really did. But I got stuck pretty fast on the method of how to actually use only ten percent of my brain. There seem to be many ways to go about it. For example, I could just think this article in my head, and only write down every tenth word. But the results would be incomprehensible. I could decrease my writing quality to 10% of its usual stellar technique. But that would be annoying for any future readers. I could remove 90% of my writing tools, and type this article using only one finger. But that would just slow me down significantly, when I'd be getting the same final result. Wait: I could encode the characters in this article into their base-10 ASCII equivalents. I'd then take the resulting numeric string and increase its value by a factor of 10, then convert the results back from ASCII into plain text. Mathematical perfection. Granted, it would be unreadable mathematical perfection. That's counterintuitive to the purpose of Digital Bits Skeptic, so maybe that's not the best idea. No, as much as I'd love the symbolism, I can't easily write this article using ten percent of my brain. Yet there are some who argue that's what everyone does all the time. Everyone, that is, apart from a few special gifted people. The first time I heard the myth of "you only use 10% of your brain" was when I was very young. Oddly, I was probably about ten. I had a respected family member fill me in. She said that the human potential had yet to be fully realized. Humans had dormant skills and talents. These super-cognitive powers were trapped in the brain, and using them required special training or a lot of luck. She said that there were a few people (she specifically mentioned Edison and Einstein) who used a little more of their brain, and they were able to really understand the world, and create and invent and make life better for all mankind. And, she said, these world-changing scientists only used "maybe twenty percent" of their brains. Wow! The implications were staggering. I thought, if I could use just twenty percent of my brain, I'd be up there with Einstein and Edison? Not bad. At school, I only paid attention half the time. If I paid attention full-time, then oh, baby: I'd be a genius. Of course, this analysis is pretty goofy. And it's meant to be. I'm trying to show how a tool (like the human brain) doesn't mesh with the idea of partial use. How do you use ten percent of a hammer? The concept doesn't make sense. Yet we hear it often in pop culture, from referencing revered geniuses like Einstein, or when self-help gurus claim psychic powers or life-changing self-help. Granted, a brain is far more complex than a hammer. Think of it instead as a collection of tools. But again, are the "10% believers" saying some tools are lying dormant and unused? If humans use only ten percent of their brains, what is the other unused ninety percent? What tools in the toolbox are never touched? Let's look at some detail. This article in Psychology Today gives several tips to improve brainpower. Note that none of them talk about anything earth-shattering, as is proper for tried and true techniques. These are established methods, from regular exercise to eating your beans. The theory of multiple intelligences is an educational theory by Howard Gardner. The theory disagrees with the definition claiming a person is either a genius or not, or a smart person or not. Gardner says that if a person is deficient in one cognitive area (for example, math), that person can be above average in another area (for example, music). This concept details how all humans have potential, but motivation and other factors determine if a person uses that skill. To use a personal story, I went to high school. One of my schoolmates was a pretty big guy - that's "big" as in tall and muscular. He was over six feet, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/#comments Fri, 30 May 2008 02:59:55 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/feed/ 5 Science Reason & Rationality by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1228 - Do you want to learn how to knock out an opponent without touching them? How about learning the art of fighting ghosts with the power of "The Force"? Well, here's your chance! by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1228 Do you want to learn how to knock out an opponent without touching them? How about learning the art of fighting ghosts with the power of "The Force"? Well, here's your chance! Japan's Yanagi Ryuken can teach you now. He holds a 10th degree black belt in five traditional martial arts, and his system is based on martial arts like Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu and spiritual paths like Qigong. Yanagi Ryuken supposedly won over 200 Vale Tudo competitions (these are "anything goes" fights, involving unarmed combat and minimal rules). According to the author of the video below, you need 500,000 yen (about $5,000 USD) in order to get a chance to fight with Yanagi Ryuken. However, if you win the fight, Yanagi Ryuken will pay you back double: 1,000,000 yen ($10,000 USD)! Good deal, right? With such a confident offer and so many claimed achievements and victories, you might think there would be more written about this martial arts master. However, little more can be found. Now, watch for yourself the Jedi-like "Master" in action using the power of the "Force". Good promotional video to attract new gullible students to join the Dojo (martial arts school), don't you think? That's what I call effective Bullshido! In this video, we have a genuine martial artist and a probable skeptic, Iwakura Goh. He accepted Yanagi Ryuken's expensive and intimidating martial arts challenge. In the resulting fight, Yanagi Ryuken gets to prove his claims by facing a real opponent on live video and in front of a live audience. Let's see what happens... Let's watch that again from another angle: This video only proves that Yanagi Ryuken's invisible "power" or "chi" or "chi kung" or "qi gong" or whatever you want to call it, is nothing but a human fantasized delusion. It has always been the case that when such claims are critically examined under properly controlled and observable conditions; the seemingly paranormal feats of "chi masters" turn out to be nothing but ordinary feats of deception, magic tricks or illusions, and are more of a natural ability than anything unnatural, supernatural or mysterious. Go ahead; try it yourself on a blind and deaf person or on any nonhuman animal. Will anything supernatural happen? Note that amusing the victim doesn't count. Another source says that Yanagi Ryuken claimed that he is able to actually fight ghosts. Too bad Iwakura Goh wasn't a ghost. Maybe then, Yanagi Ryuken wouldn't have ended the fight laying on the floor bleeding. Maybe then, he wouldn't have looked like a delusional clown. There's a silver lining to this story. Yanagi Ryuken has now decided to retire and will no longer accept any more challenges. And just when I was going to contact him to accept his challenge and make some money out of it too. Maybe there will be someone else like him in the future. Who knows? If there's a down side to this story, is that's some of Yanagi Ryuken's students and other gullible individuals might still believe or make others believe in such nonsense. They could make a living through the stupidity of others, right? I'm sure they'll find some excuse for what happened to Yanagi Ryuken that day. They'll dismiss reality, and go on arguing that no-touch knockouts really do exist. "There's a sucker born every minute." -David Hannum Like some rapidly spreading mental virus, this delusion has now infected Western countries, including the United States of America. In this video, Tom Cameron demonstrates his no-touch knockout "power"  on the Fox News show, "The bottom line". Tom Cameron was trained by a so-called martial arts Grandmaster, George Dillman. Let's now see what excuses George Dillman himself gave when his claims didn't work on a research scientist, Luigi Garlaschelli in a National Geographic special, titled "Superhuman Power: Is It Real?" Now that you heard all the fantastic excuses from George Dillman, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/12/homeopathy-diluted-and-deluded/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/12/homeopathy-diluted-and-deluded/#comments Tue, 13 May 2008 01:48:16 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/12/homeopathy-diluted-and-deluded/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/12/homeopathy-diluted-and-deluded/feed/ 2 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1224 - Homeopathy finds its origins in the 18th century with a German named Samuel Hahnemann (we won't address the honour of his doctorate). This was a time when blood-letting, leeches, By M Parrott Article ID: 1224 Homeopathy finds its origins in the 18th century with a German named Samuel Hahnemann (we won't address the honour of his doctorate). This was a time when blood-letting, leeches, mercury and arsenic were utilised in medical practice. Mr. Hahnemann's idea was to create a less-harsh form of medicine straying away from the dangerous medicines of the day. This seems a good idea. A shame it doesn't work. We'll come back to him later. There are a few basic premises in homeopathy. The first is the "law of similars". The homeopath starts with a supposed "proving". It may be a natural ingredient, drug or -most popularly - poison. A test subject is told to ingest the substance for a week or so and record any symptoms. These results are not used to show if the substance is dangerous as in real medicines, but to show what they cure! ...What?! The symptoms are supposed to cure diseases and conditions that have the same symptoms! Do you see the problem? This means that homeopathic sleeping tablets include caffeine as the active ingredient. Does this not defy all common sense and modern science, where one treats a problem with something that causes the same symptoms as the problem? Where did this bizarre belief originate? For that we back-track to our good friend Mr. Hahnemann and chinchona bark extract. Chinchona bark extract was a known treatment for malaria. Hahnemann was messing around with a few drugs and narcotics, supposedly for test purposes. Upon Hahnemann's taking of the substance he gained the symptoms of malaria, in his eyes proving that the "law of similars" works. However, later studies (after homeopathy had truly taken off) showed that Hahnemann was allergic to chinchona, and this caused the effects of malaria. Okay, so the basic premise of homeopathy is based around someone being allergic to a medicine? Don't you think that evidence seems just the slightest bit weak? So people are ingesting poisons, possibly on their death-bed, believing these poisons will cure them just because some German doctor was allergic to a medicine. However, ingesting poison is not a problem: the second rule of Homeopathy is the theory of infinitesimals or potentisation. The process begins with one drop of the chosen poison being put in 100 drops of water; this is called a 1C solution. Yes, that's right, one in one hundred dilution of the active ingredient. But of course, there is the vigorous shaking and the tapping ten times, ten being the magic number of homeopathy, transferring the "spiritual essence" of the substance. With harmful substances, however, 1 in 100 is still too strong. What to do, what to do? Ah! Dilute it again. In fact, the most common dilution is 30C! That's a ratio of 1 over 1 followed by sixty zeros! No wonder homeopathic treatments advertise "no negative side-effects": there are no bloody positive side effects either! So, how do homeopaths get around this scientific impossibility? Water has a memory. Um, what? One homeopathic researcher is Jacques Benveniste, another supposed doctor. In 1988 he claimed that water has the power to remember the properties of a substance when diluted down to homeopathic treatments, and supposedly had "evidence" to prove it. Naturally, the scientific community met this theory with much scepticism, but the British Medical Journal agreed to publish Benveniste on one condition: he must open his laboratory to a team of independent referees to evaluate his work. At this point, the wonderful James Randi stepped in to investigate. Unsurprisingly, Randi and the referees came back with unquestionable evidence showing that Benveniste's work was - wait for it - wrong! It's interesting and telling that a study homeopaths continually quote is one that has been disproven. There is absolutely no credible evidence proving dilute treatments, such as homeopathic medicines, have any affects on the human immune system. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/28/sodascience-an-open-letter-to-the-thirsty/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/28/sodascience-an-open-letter-to-the-thirsty/#comments Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:18:18 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/28/sodascience-an-open-letter-to-the-thirsty/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/28/sodascience-an-open-letter-to-the-thirsty/feed/ 1 Andy Kaiser by Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1222 - Okay, Soda. You've made your points. We get it. We know how much you love yourself. You want us to worship you as The One True Carbonator. "I am the one true Soda. Pour no other refreshments before me. by Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1222 Okay, Soda. You've made your points. We get it. We know how much you love yourself. You want us to worship you as The One True Carbonator. "I am the one true Soda. Pour no other refreshments before me." You're missing a critical aspect: nothing you say makes any sense. I'm not talking about manipulating emotions. I know you think that you taste the best. You've got the right blend of chemicals in your divinely inspired secret formula. Your followers praise that taste without understanding what they're drinking. When you drop the emotions and actually look at your claims, you put a bad taste in my mouth. Here's why: Sodascience makes factually wrong claims I've seen your ads. Your fliers, your commercials, your proclamations are everywhere. If you drink this soda, you'll get all the chicks or dudes you want! Unlike some other sodas, you keep this vague - you don't say whether the reward is, to pick a random example, 72 eager virgins. But hey, I'm not picky, just precise. If you really were all you claim, I'd be praising your artificially-sweetened name right now. But why are the people in commercials the only people benefiting from soda? Whenever I drink you, sure, I get less thirsty. Nothing more.  I'm never surrounded by CGI adventures or mostly-naked, tanned and toned members of my preferred sex. Actually, one thing does happen - I get this irregular heartbeat for about two hours. Thanks for all that blessed caffeine. Speaking of heart arrhythmia, it's telling how you preach that the One True Soda is the cure for all ills, but you never address any of your known abuses. You ever see that Mythbusters episode where they tried to dissolve a tooth with your acidic holiness? Or would you rather I bring up childhood obesity, diabetes, or a certain little carcinogen named "benzene"? Sodascience redefines its name to hide its agenda When I was a kid, we didn't call you "soda". We called you "pop"! Yeah, I know this is partially a geographical distinction, partially cultural. You've always had multiple names. But recently, it seems, your proponents shy away from the word "pop", or "cola", or "tonic", or equally outdated names. Why? I understand the desire to keep with the times. But don't call yourself "soda" in an effort to hide the fact you're "pop". The name you use doesn't change what you are. If you think people don't notice, ask other people what to call you. You might be surprised at the answers. Covering your agenda behind a new name is cowardly, self-serving and amoral. It also means you've got something to hide. Sodascience is outdated, preaching laws dreamt up years ago Let's face it, you're old. You were created long ago by people living a completely different lifestyle. There is something to be said for antiquity, of course. But holding to tradition for tradition's sake? That's just silly. Face it - the first marketed soft drinks appeared in the 17th Century. Why must you continue to preach that ancient era's racism, xenophobia, and scary dental hygiene? Isn't it time to get with the program? Come on already, it's been over 400 years! Improve yourself. Evolve. Of course, you can't. It's part of your nature. Even the old-fashioned name "Pop" is from those old days of sexism and woman-bashing. Sodascience claims unproven miracles Early soft drinks were said to produce miracles. They were a cure-all for whatever ailed you. Poor health. Infection. Erectile dysfunction. Covetous neighbors. Covetous neighbors with erectile dysfunction. Whatever the problem was, you just sprinkled that carbonated elixir and watched your worries bubble away. The problem is, we never hear about these types of miracles today. Nope, we get claims that are always second hand, untestable or misunderstood. Come on now. If you're really going to claim miracles, give us something we can work with. And continually bringing up your secret formula, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/25/faith-versus-the-scientific-method/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/25/faith-versus-the-scientific-method/#comments Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:51:53 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/25/faith-versus-the-scientific-method/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/25/faith-versus-the-scientific-method/feed/ 6 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/astrology-is-the-forer-effect-in-action/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/astrology-is-the-forer-effect-in-action/#comments Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:22:40 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/astrology-is-the-forer-effect-in-action/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/astrology-is-the-forer-effect-in-action/feed/ 15 Science Reason & Rationality by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 129 - I think most people already know what astrology is. After all, it has been used by people everywhere since ancient times right up to the modern age. But how does astrology so successfully fool people i... by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 129 I think most people already know what astrology is. After all, it has been used by people everywhere since ancient times right up to the modern age. But how does astrology so successfully fool people into believing it's real? The answer is quite simple. Astrology creates something many people are not really aware of. It is called "illusion". Magicians have always used trickery to create illusions to convince others what he or she does is in fact real magic, real supernatural powers. Audiences are baffled because they can't explain what they just saw. That's what magic tricks are all about. Magic wouldn't be as impressive if everyone knew how it was done, would it? Some magic tricks exceed the expectation of an audience to the point they start to believe it couldn't have been just a simple trick. They insist it had to be some kind of black magic, demonic power, or divine force. This is the first mistake that people make: they transform a certain assumption into a certain belief. They assume or believe something IS, rather than inquire or investigate HOW something is. The use of critical thinking and evidence-based investigation over faith-based living and emotion-driven thinking is extremely important when it comes to accepting or rejecting fantastic claims. "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." ~ Bertrand Russell Understand that magicians do not selflessly perform magic tricks for your entertainment. They also want something else. It's called "money". If they want to stand out, magicians have to constantly come up with new tricks that are better and more believable than other magicians. So the tricks get more sophisticated and more amazing every time. Nevertheless, they are all still illusions to trick your mind. I've got no problem with magicians who make a living by entertaining others. But I do have a problem with magicians who call themselves legitimate psychics, astrologers, fortune tellers and prophets. There are two kinds of charlatans in this category. The first one knows exactly what they're doing. They've learned the tricks and use their skills to attain fame and fortune. The second one really believes that they have somehow attained special abilities or powers, and they want to help people through their "divine gifts." The first one takes advantage of others through more trickery and deceit. The second one is just as deluded as his or her supporting believers, who also become victims of the first one, who encourages the second one, and all believers to keep on living in the rabbit hole so that the first one would still have a business to run. See how important network marketing is? Now, let me show you how astrology works. First, consider the following as if it were given to you as a personality evaluation. Imagine I'm the astrologer and you're the customer: You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic. Rate this assessment from 0 to 5, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/09/the-secret-movie-delusion/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/09/the-secret-movie-delusion/#comments Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:08:52 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/09/the-secret-movie-delusion/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/09/the-secret-movie-delusion/feed/ 9 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/08/the-dyatlov-pass-accident-and-the-fatal-unknown-compelling-force/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/08/the-dyatlov-pass-accident-and-the-fatal-unknown-compelling-force/#comments Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:43:51 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/08/the-dyatlov-pass-accident-and-the-fatal-unknown-compelling-force/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/08/the-dyatlov-pass-accident-and-the-fatal-unknown-compelling-force/feed/ 200 Andy Kaiser by Andy Kaiser Article ID: 127 - What was the Dyatlov pass accident? - On January 28, 1959, ten experienced cross-country skiers left for a skiing expedition. They headed for the Otorten Mountain range in the northern Urals. by Andy Kaiser Article ID: 127 What was the Dyatlov pass accident? On January 28, 1959, ten experienced cross-country skiers left for a skiing expedition. They headed for the Otorten Mountain range in the northern Urals. One skier fell ill and had to turn back. The remaining nine skiers left him behind and continued their journey. They were led by Igor Dyatlov, 23, from whom the accident and location were named: What happened next is partially conjecture, partially reconstructed from search party evidence, and photos and journals from the deceased. The skiers never returned from their trip. On February 26, 1959, searchers found the group's tent "half torn and covered with snow". While no one was in the tent, the group's belongings, including shoes and clothing, had been left behind. Footprints were in the snow around the tent, indicating people wearing socks, one shoe or no footwear at all. Below is a picture of the tent as it was found by the search party: Two bodies were found almost two kilometers down the mountainous slope, near a forest. Both were barefoot and dressed only in underwear. The remains of a fire were nearby. Branches on a nearby tree were broken up to five meters high, and some branches remained in the snow. Three more bodies were found between the first two bodies and the tent. The positioning of these three was such that it seemed they'd been trying to return to the tent when they were overcome by the cold. While these five died of hypothermia, one had a fractured skull (this was considered not fatal). Four more bodies were found in a nearby ravine. Buried in snow, they seem to have suffered traumatic deaths: one suffered a crushed skull. Two others, multiple broken ribs. A fourth was missing her tongue. Adding to this, these bodies showed "no external wounds", as would be seen from a physical attack by human or animal. These latter four were dressed warmly. The first five were not, and some were wearing parts of the others' clothes. It seems that those who died last removed clothes from those who died first. The clothes all contained high levels of radiation. A source for this contamination was not found. After the funerals, relatives said the victims' skin had a "strange orange tan", and that they were completely grey-haired. Reconstructions of the victims' behavior indicated that they may have been blinded. An example is that the victims broke wet tree branches to start their campfire, though there was good dry kindling nearby. While treated as a crime scene, the investigation ceased officially in May 1959 due to the absence of a guilty party. The group was deemed to have died from an "unknown compelling force". During the night of this tragedy, another group of hikers 50 kilometers south reported they saw "strange orange spheres" in the northern sky. Similar spheres were seen in nearby cities during February through March of 1959. Witnesses included a weather service and the military. On February 2, 2008 six of the rescuers and over 30 independent experts gathered together to examine the facts and look for answers. They concluded that the deaths were caused accidentally by military testing. That's a horribly mundane end to a frightening, confusing and exciting story. Other theories as to what happened at the Dyatlov pass accident include encounters with UFOs, Yeti, "mountain madness" or a group of murderous natives in the area. One of the points of this article is to illustrate that, while the above pseudo-scientific explanations may sound better or make a better movie, scientific analysis can and does prove them wrong, or far less probable. In addition, there are many explanations as to the "unexplainable" facts from the Dyatlov pass accident. These make far more sense than assuming the Dyatlov pass accident was supernatural. Summarized, here's a list of the Dyatlov pass accident facts: The victims' tent was "cut from the inside". Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/24/human-static-electricity-generators-can-a-persons-body-generate-static-electricity/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/24/human-static-electricity-generators-can-a-persons-body-generate-static-electricity/#comments Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:50:02 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/24/human-static-electricity-generators-can-a-persons-body-generate-static-electricity/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/24/human-static-electricity-generators-can-a-persons-body-generate-static-electricity/feed/ 140 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 125 - Is your body a static electricity generator? Do you produce static electricity, shocking everything you touch? Do watches, computers and other electronics behave differently for you than for other people? By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 125 Is your body a static electricity generator? Do you produce static electricity, shocking everything you touch? Do watches, computers and other electronics behave differently for you than for other people? Is every handshake a shocking experience? It's understandable this super-power can be frustrating, perhaps dangerous. It's at least a major inconvenience. However, before you assume your body can generate static electricity using methods unexplainable and unknown to science, you should first look at your environment. Why? Static electricity is everywhere. And under the right conditions, it's easy to generate. A case study is reported in The Daily Mall about Mavis Price, the "super-charged grandmother whose touch BLOWS UP kettles". As we read the story, we find the author embellished the facts a bit, beginning with the title itself. But no matter, let's examine the story as presented: "Mavis Price, since the 1950s, has had the unusual ability to generate electricity in her body. Her first experience with this ability began, in her words, when she "plugged in a television set and ended up blowing up the television and flying across the room." Her static electricity generation symptoms include: She can't use a computer, as her static-creating ability interferes with them. As she says in the article: "I went on an IT course, but it was a nightmare because every time I touched the computer it would either freeze or shut down." Her household appliances have a very short lifespan. As the article says: "She estimates she has destroyed 15 kettles in the last few years. Housework has also become a problem, with 20 irons and ten vacuum cleaners biting the dust after falling foul of her apparently supercharged touch." The symptoms aren't confined only to her house. The article gives several examples of her being outside of home and experiencing shocks and higher-than-usual static electricity buildup. The "facts" are either largely subjective or unverifiable, but it's clear Ms. Price does have problems with static electricity. How to generate static electricity How does a human body generate static electricity? There are many factors increasing static electricity generation, including: Wearing certain clothing (including shirts, jackets, pants and shoes). Wool, rubber, fleece, vinyl and synthetic materials increase the effect. Having a house without grounded outlets, or having a house with bad wiring Walking a certain way. Shuffling and dragging one's feet will increase electrostatic buildup. The humidity of where one lives. The lower the humidity, the better the conditions are for static generation. As well as general humidity, having unusually dry skin may increase the ability to store static electricity. Most any time an object moves against another object. The object types and surrounding environment will determine how much static electricity is generated. As anyone with a balloon knows, it's very easy to do, as in these simple science lab experiments involving static electricity. Testing people for static electricity generation and dispersal Let's assume the electrostatic generation ability is true as reported. Or at least, assume the symptoms are true, and that Mavis Price generates more static electricity than a normal person. This is the fun part. We get to test. 1) Get a multimeter. This will allow us to not only measure the static buildup in her body, but also measure the "zap" when she touches a grounded piece of metal. It would be interesting to see if the measurement is truly beyond any normal person's ability to generate static electricity, or if another person in the same conditions can produce the same measurements. 2) Strip Ms. Price naked. ...Okay, maybe that's a little extreme, and probably not very appreciated by Ms. Price herself. However, clothing greatly contributes to static electricity buildup. Particularly footwear. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/18/book-review-of-the-secret-by-rhonda-byrne-a-skeptical-review-of-a-subjective-reality/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/18/book-review-of-the-secret-by-rhonda-byrne-a-skeptical-review-of-a-subjective-reality/#comments Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:54:18 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/18/book-review-of-the-secret-by-rhonda-byrne-a-skeptical-review-of-a-subjective-reality/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/18/book-review-of-the-secret-by-rhonda-byrne-a-skeptical-review-of-a-subjective-reality/feed/ 10 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 124 - Let's get this part out of the way now: - What is The Secret? What is Rhonda Byrne's philosophy? What is the Law of Attraction? - It's defined many times, in many different ways, by many different people in the book. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 124 Let's get this part out of the way now: What is The Secret? What is Rhonda Byrne's philosophy? What is the Law of Attraction? It's defined many times, in many different ways, by many different people in the book... Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/12/12/photo-evidence-of-ectoplasm-and-ghost-orbs-explained/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/12/12/photo-evidence-of-ectoplasm-and-ghost-orbs-explained/#comments Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:39:21 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/12/12/photo-evidence-of-ectoplasm-and-ghost-orbs-explained/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/12/12/photo-evidence-of-ectoplasm-and-ghost-orbs-explained/feed/ 12 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/#comments Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:53:21 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/feed/ 2 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/22/essential-oils-and-aromatherapy-a-rebuttal-to-bunk-science-and-the-healing-power-of-odors/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/22/essential-oils-and-aromatherapy-a-rebuttal-to-bunk-science-and-the-healing-power-of-odors/#comments Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:23:23 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/22/essential-oils-and-aromatherapy-a-rebuttal-to-bunk-science-and-the-healing-power-of-odors/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/22/essential-oils-and-aromatherapy-a-rebuttal-to-bunk-science-and-the-healing-power-of-odors/feed/ 2 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 112 - Scroll down to read the entire document, or click for: - Introduction and purpose - Essential oils and aromatherapy source document - Part 1: "Definition: subtle, volatile liquids... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 112 Scroll down to read the entire document, or click for: Introduction and purpose Essential oils and aromatherapy source document Part 1: "Definition: subtle, volatile liquids..." Part 2: "They... Andy Kaiser clean